In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to enforce the law in general. In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. Other court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you, are not liable for failing to protect the public, and the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals & other persons in custody for such problems as mental disorders.
In other words, the police are under no legal or Constitutional obligation to protect the individual or the public from criminals or mentally ill people.
Please keep the above in mind as you read the rest of this post.
For the past five years, President Obama and the Democrats have been promoting the benefits of an overhaul to the healthcare and insurance industries. Promises of lower costs and better coverage were some of the many perks promoted by a governmental takeover of the health insurance and healthcare industries.
And yes, no matter what President Obama and the Democratic Congress have stated to the contrary, it is a governmental takeover of this most critical part of the average American’s lives with implications that are only now coming to light.
The rollout of the Affordable Healthcare Act’s website has been nothing short of a disaster. This is after over $500,000,000 of our tax dollars and 3 1/2 years of work. The experts digging into the shortcomings of the website to try and fix it are shaking their head in disgust – the website appears to have been coded by a bunch of amateurs, and not very good ones at that.
But despite the shortcomings of the website, the real impact of the laws are being felt across the nation. Businesses are not hiring because of the associated mandated costs of employees, hours of part-time workers are being cut to less than 30 hours a week, and those full-time employees who can be forced to work part-time are seeing their hours cut to the same level. Insurance companies are cancelling policies that do not meet the ACA’s requirements even though they meet the individual person’s needs. Replacement policies are much, much higher in cost for the individual with less coverage unless the individual qualifies for subsidies. And there is a predicted doctor shortage due in part to the expected lower reimbursement rates for doctors & higher costs of dealing with more government regulations and paperwork.
This whole debacle is nothing but a massive Liberal shell game based on fraud and deception. Excerpts from Charles Krauthammer:
Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”
The cancellations lay bare three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism, and (c) subterfuge.
a) Those letters are irrefutable evidence that Obama’s repeated you-keep-your-coverage claim was false. Why were they sent out? Because Obamacare renders illegal (with exceedingly narrow “grandfathered” exceptions) the continuation of any insurance plan deemed by Washington regulators not to meet their arbitrary standards for adequacy. Example: No maternity care? You are terminated.
So a law designed to cover the uninsured is now throwing far more people off their insurance than it can possibly be signing up on the nonfunctioning insurance exchanges. Indeed, most of the 19 million people with individual insurance will have to find new and likely more expensive coverage. And that doesn’t even include the additional millions who are sure to lose their employer-provided coverage. That’s a lot of people. That’s a pretty big lie.
b) Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.
Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, and liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.
c) As for subterfuge, these required bells and whistles aren’t just there to festoon the health-care Christmas tree with voter-pleasing freebies. The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people.
Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates, and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.
The endgame of this law is that after totally wrecking the health insurance industry, the Liberals in Government will introduce ACA 2.0, which is a single-payer system which puts the government pays for all healthcare costs. This would mean that every taxpayer will fund the monster, and if any of the current expected costs are an indication, will result in higher taxes for everyone.
It would also mean that government would be in charge of determining the levels of healthcare that would be funded to a person for an illness. With an insurance company, there is a contract that pretty well defines coverage. With governmental bureaucratic mish-mash, who knows what changes would be made without your knowledge?
Let’s take this statement from President Obama when he was asked if an old person should receive a pacemaker to save her life and improve the quality of living:
“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ‘spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” – President Barack Hussein Obama, June 2009
Now if this is the President stating that a person should just take a pain pill instead of having surgery, what do you think that a faceless, nameless, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrat is going to say? The implications are frightening when one takes into consideration that there would be a very slim chance of overriding the decision either by appeal to higher up the food chain.
Likewise, appealing healthcare decisions in the courts would most likely be a fruitless effort. Remember, the Courts are Government. And I will bet that, like the various Supreme Court and State Court decisions to absolve the police from liability or responsibility to protect the public or individual from criminals, the bureaucrats will be protected from responsibility and liability in court cases where their decisions to limit healthcare to individuals resulted in pain, suffering, and death.
That, my friends, is the real nightmare of a governmental single-payer system.